For leftist-progressives, child abuse is a regular way of life. If they can’t slaughter children in the womb, they will use a child’s natural instinct to trust to twist that child’s mind and ruin his life. They are the most evil people alive. They will writhe in the torment of their own shame for eternity.

Fortunately for them, there is an escape: Jesus took upon Himself the shame of us all, satisfying God’s wrath against us for our sin and making it possible for us to enjoy eternity doing interesting work for the glory of God.

Listening to the Darwinoid narrative, one can get the idea that “Natural Selection” is a driving force, but Natural selection is just a description of what happens; the concept has no agency.

For example, one gets the idea that, supposing that there is an island populated with dogs, a permanent climate change toward colder temperatures would “cause” dogs to develop long-hair characteristics. Darwinoids don’t really posit this; it just seems like it from listening to them. What Darwinoids say occurs in the above example is that, when the climate changes on the island, the dogs with longer hair tend to live longer, can acquire greater amounts of food–making them healthier–and are more exuberant maters, producing more offspring with the long-haired gene, until eventually the short-haired dogs can no longer find mates to breed. If the climate changes to a warmer one, the process reverses, and short-haired dogs become dominant.

The question that Darwinoids seem to avoid is, why do any of the dogs (or any mammal) have hair at all? Which developed first, male sexual organs, or female sexual organs–did they develop at the same time? I’m sure there’s some fru-fru talk about gender-bending “bacteria” (or some population of “simple organisms”) that became hard-coded with one gender or the other because Natural Selection meant that hard-coded gender bacteria was able to produce more offspring in populations than bacteria that could switch genders and just shut up and gives us more government funding, you Creatard.

I’ve done a very brief bit of research (by looking at the Wikipedia article on James Comey), and so far the history matches. He was the guy that prosecuted Martha Stewart, he was the guy who absolved Bill Clinton of any wrongdoing when he (Clinton) pardoned Marc Rich, he did work at Lockheed Martin–although the opinion piece linked above seemed to indicate that he only took the job to funnel Lockheed’s charitable donations to the Clinton Foundation in return for government contracts granted to Lockheed Martin by H. Clinton’s State Department. Comey actually was hired by LM in 2005, and H. Clinton did not become Sec of State until 2008.

1. They saw it coming, but were too afraid for their own safety to notify anyone.
2. They saw it coming, and approved of the action.
3. They saw it coming, and tried to notify the authorities, but were ignored because “racism” (think Rotherham).
4. They saw it coming, and didn’t care.
5. They saw it coming, but didn’t think it would turn out so disastrously.
6. They didn’t see it coming, for a variety of reasons.
7. Etc., etc.

People who believe in extraterrestrial intelligent life forms (or any life forms) tend to believe in the “molecules to man evolutionary hypothesis” in some form or another. But if “Evolution” is true, then we earthling humans are most likely the most evolutionary advanced creatures in the universe. Seriously. Do you realize how much time it’s supposed to take for the descendants of spontaneously generated bacteria to reach human-level complexity? The universe is only 13 or 14 billion years old, after all…

An excerpt: “The funny thing is that chicken bones have been found in archaeological dig sites through out North America for decades and because of Scientific Consensus, these artifacts were invariably thrown away as site contamination. The archaeologists who found them deeply resented doing so because it meant the rest of their finds would now be under a question mark.”

But, even if the blood vessels had been bio-film, this could hardly have explained the presence of proteins and DNA.13 In any case, though, ‘bio-film’ only rarely gets trotted out in more recent years, as Schweitzer herself has been able to present a powerful case for the blood vessels not being bio-films.14

But many critics of biblical creation have found what they think is a good counter to this distinction. They claim that the science used to show that evolution is fact “works just like CSI” (Crime Scene Investigation).2 This argument seems stronger than the simplistic ‘religion vs science’ idea. The scientific approach used by evolutionists to try to reconstruct the past does have a lot in common with CSI—they are both examples of what could be called ‘forensic’ or ‘historical’ science (see CSI … and CMI). In each case, there is an attempt to use good science to reconstruct the past.